In 2025, TCR reviewers continue to make outstanding contributions to the peer review process. They demonstrated professional effort and enthusiasm in their reviews and provided comments that genuinely help the authors to enhance their work.
Hereby, we would like to highlight some of our outstanding reviewers, with a brief interview of their thoughts and insights as a reviewer. Allow us to express our heartfelt gratitude for their tremendous effort and valuable contributions to the scientific process.
Kewalin Inthanon, Thammasat University, Thailand
Wankyu Eo, Kyung Hee University Hospital, Korea
Maria A Clavijo-Salomon, National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, USA
Kewalin Inthanon
Kewalin Inthanon is an assistant professor in biotechnology at Thammasat University, Lampang Campus. She earned her Ph.D. in Biology from Chiang Mai University, where her research focused on stem cells and regenerative medicine. Since joining Thammasat University in 2016, her research has expanded to explore the effects of natural products and pharmaceuticals on cellular behavior. Specifically, she investigates how phytochemicals and environmental factors influence cellular responses, with a focus on oxidative stress and its links to various diseases. She integrates biotechnology and biochemistry with natural products and biomaterials to understand cellular mechanisms at a deeper level. By employing advanced human cell culture systems, she assesses the effects of bioactive compounds and/or stress environments on cellular activities, including signaling pathways and gene expression. Through this approach, she aims to uncover key biological mechanisms that could contribute to medical applications and therapeutic advancements. Learn more about her here.
In Dr. Inthanon’s opinion, peer review is essential because it ensures the reliability and credibility of scientific research. She thinks it serves as a crucial checkpoint, helping to filter out errors, biases, and inconsistencies before findings are shared with the scientific community. It is not just about maintaining standards—it is about strengthening the foundation of knowledge we all rely on. Through expert evaluation, research becomes more refined, meaningful, and trustworthy. Without peer review, scientific progress would be at risk of misinformation, making it harder to distinguish reliable findings from flawed ones. She sees it as a collective effort, where researchers help each other improve, ensuring that science continues to move forward with integrity and impact.
According to Dr. Inthanon, a destructive review is one that tears down a researcher’s work without offering meaningful guidance for improvement. Instead of providing thoughtful, constructive feedback, it may be overly harsh, vague, or dismissive. She regards this as not just unhelpful but also damaging to the scientific process—it discourages researchers, slows progress, and sometimes even feels personal rather than objective. A good review, even when critical, should be fair, specific, and aimed at strengthening the research rather than shutting it down. Science thrives on rigorous yet respectful dialogue, where critique is balanced with encouragement. Progress is not driven by criticism alone but by collaboration, support, and the shared goal of producing high-quality research.
“Peer reviewing, despite being anonymous and non-profitable, is a valuable process that I find both intellectually rewarding and essential for scientific progress. One of my main motivations is the opportunity to continuously expand my knowledge and stay updated on the latest scientific developments. Reviewing allows me to engage with cutting-edge research, keeping me informed about emerging trends, methodologies, and discoveries in my field. Beyond my area of specialization, peer review also exposes me to diverse perspectives and ideas that I might not encounter otherwise. This intellectual exchange helps me connect with new concepts, broadening my understanding and inspiring fresh approaches to my own research,” says Dr. Inthanon. “It challenges me to think critically, refine my analytical skills, and consider different angles that could enhance my scientific work. Science is a collective effort, and by providing constructive feedback, I hope to contribute to the beauty of well-crafted research—where knowledge is communicated effectively and advances the field in meaningful ways.”
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Wankyu Eo
Dr. Wankyu Eo, MD, PhD, is a professor in the Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology at Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, Seoul, Korea. He holds dual PhDs, one in Medical Oncology from Kyung Hee University and another in Oriental Medicine from Sangji University, along with a diploma in statistics. Having served as a visiting scholar at Yale New Haven Cancer Center's Bone Marrow Transplantation Unit, his current research is focused on identifying prognostic and predictive factors for solid tumors, including lung, gastric, and gynecologic cancers.
According to Dr. Eo, peer review is of utmost importance in scientific publishing. It acts as a safeguard to ensure that research adheres to high standards of quality, validity, and originality. Through the evaluation by experts, studies are scrutinized for ethical conduct, methodological rigor, and clarity. This not only enhances the reliability of individual research studies but also significantly contributes to building and maintaining public trust in scientific findings. In essence, peer review is a crucial mechanism that upholds the integrity of the scientific community.
Dr. Eo emphasizes the need to maintain the integrity and quality of scholarly publications when reviewing papers. Reviewers must possess the necessary expertise to accurately evaluate the manuscript's quality, rigor, and validity. They should critically examine the study's design, data collection methods, and analysis techniques to ensure their appropriateness and ethical soundness. Providing clear, specific, and actionable feedback is essential, all while remaining objective and showing respect for the authors. Additionally, reviewers should be aware of their own limitations in expertise, which helps editors make more informed decisions regarding the publication of the manuscript.
For clinicians like Dr. Eo, balancing the demands of peer review with other professional responsibilities can be a challenge. To manage this effectively, he adopts a selective approach to accepting review requests, ensuring that he has sufficient time to conduct thorough evaluations without neglecting his other obligations. Setting aside specific time periods, such as weekends, for reviewing manuscripts has been a helpful strategy. He views the peer-review process not as a burdensome task but as an opportunity to enhance his critical thinking skills and stay updated with the latest research in his field. This positive perspective helps him make the most of the time he dedicates to peer review.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Maria A Clavijo-Salomon
Maria A. Clavijo Salomon is a cancer immunologist working at the National Cancer Institute within the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, USA. She has an extensive educational background starting with her graduation from the Pharmacy School at the National University of Colombia, followed by specialization in Compounding Pharmacy at the Oswaldo Cruz College in Brazil. She obtained her Doctorate in Immunology from the University of Sao Paulo, Brazil, and completed post-doctoral training in Immuno-Oncology at the Institute of Cancer of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Currently, she serves as a senior research scholar in the Cancer Immunology Section of the Laboratory of Integrative Cancer Immunology at the National Cancer Institute. Her research primarily focuses on three areas: understanding the mechanisms of tumor resistance to cancer immunotherapies, including the role of the gut microbiome; developing new platforms to model human cancer for cancer immunotherapy discovery; and constantly searching for blood biomarkers with predictive and prognostic value. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
According to Maria, peer review is of utmost importance in the scientific community. It serves as a crucial safeguard to ensure the quality and integrity of scientific research. By subjecting research to peer review, the reliability of the published data is confirmed, and it helps to ensure that the research can make a significant contribution to the advancement of science. Without proper peer review, there would be a risk of unreliable or substandard research being disseminated, which could potentially mislead the scientific community and impede progress.
Maria reckons that a constructive review is fundamentally optimistic. It highlights a manuscript's strengths while identifying opportunities for improvement. When authors read a constructive review, they feel proud of their work and motivated to collaborate with the reviewer, knowing that the reviewer is helping them enhance their paper for them and the scientific community. In contrast, a destructive review focuses on criticism and fails to offer constructive feedback; these reviews can harm authors’ confidence and hinder scientific progress. She adds, “We have all been authors, too, and the key to writing a good review is to put yourself in the authors' shoes: write something that, when you read it, makes you feel proud of your work and encouraged about its potential.”
Despite the heavy workload associated with being a scientist, Maria has a personal rule to offer back three peer reviews for each paper she has published. She believes this approach is fair and she is willing to make room for it in her schedule. This way, she contributes to the peer-review process in a balanced manner, ensuring that she gives back to the scientific community that has also evaluated her work through peer review.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
